Fan Proposal: The New 10.0 System

Mao88 asked in an earlier thread: "If you could change one thing about figure skating, what would it be?"

Now, there are plenty of things I would change, like removing the anonymity of judges, having multiple judges marks for technical levels, and condensing the program components. But if I had to pick, it would be how marks are reported to the public. Many viewers outside of figure skating (and some that are on the inside) have little idea how to interpret these marks, and the current system condenses all the unbiased and biased marks together into one number that makes it seem as though there is no bias at all.

The New 10.0 System

Instead, I propose a new 10.0-scaled system, which doesn't change anything about the current CoP system except how it's reported to the public. The technical marks and program component marks are both reported on a 10.0 scale. This way, any changes made to the CoP system can be easily reflected by this proposed 10.0 system.

It's short and sweet, but hardly insightful and not that viewer-friendly. They would need to delve into the protocols (how many people actually do) to make sense of it all. Instead, my proposed 10.00 system turns the marks into this:

Figure skating audiences understand the scaled 10.0-scale system instinctively, and this makes each judges' mark extremely clear. We may not know the names of each judge, but we can clearly see if there's bias in the marks, particularly between Judge 2 who gave a 6.9 in PES and Judge 8 who gave a 8.0 in PES.

I imagine that all the TES and PES marks to be said aloud, whereas the base value and total are shown but not said. This can certainly be revised.

The total score mark has been left untouched, because ultimately that's what determines the placement of each skater at the most precise level.

How it's done:

To make this system work, there needs to be a set standard for the highest score. The world record for the technical mark in the ladies short program is a 44.70, set by Yuna Kim at the 2010 Olympics. Since we haven't seen a technical score like that in a while (and to make this example easy), let's just say that the world record is a flat 40.00.

Essentially, all that happens is that every mark is scaled to this world record. How this "world record" is chosen can be debated, but ultimately it doesn't matter as much, so long as it's relatively high.

First, let's take Judge 1 as an example, where we take the judge's GOE into full account on an individual basis:

The base value is 28.6. So in proportion to the 40.0 mark, the base value is reported as a 7.1.

Element

Judge 1 GOE

Points

3F+2T

-1

-0.7

3Lz

0

0

FCSp4

2

+1

2A

1

+0.5

CCoSp4

1

+0.5

SlSt3

2

+1

LSp4

2

+1

Total Points

+3.3

Subtotal

31.9 (out of 40.0)

Reported

7.9 (out of 10.0)

Taken on its own, Judge 1 would have given Akiko Suzuki a 31.9 in TES. So in proportion to the 40.00 scale, that's a 7.9 out of 10.

If a ladies skater receives a mark that's 40.0 or higher from a judge in the SP, then we see those shiny 10.0 marks shown. There's no mark higher than a 10.0 that's shown on screen or said aloud, even if the skater earns indeed a 10.3 on the scale.

However, this 10.3 still counts and exists in the background, ultimately effecting the Total Score. So just in case we have two skaters that earn a 10.0, the difference will still be reflected in what's reported.

Why use the 10.0 scale and not 6.0 scale?

The main reason is that the judges already use the 10.0 scale for PCS. Using a 6.0 scale to report it would be unnecessarily complicated. The 10.0 system also makes it look different from the original 6.0 system, to make it clear that we're not going back to that system (though of course the 10.0 scale has been used in professional skating).

You have some very interesting and carefully thought-out ideas! It could serve very well the general public, but a little bit complicated to see it right through, though; you have to calculate scores once more. Another thing; setting the current WR as its golden standard might be troubling since while we can say overall judging tendancy can be said to be agreable with each other, still there exists different standard and set of judges throughout each and every competition. That's why figure skating is not a record driven sport like swimming or track sports while it does have record keeping system. If we could sort this problem out, I think your ideas have genuinely valid and ideal points! :respec:

This is a very good idea, but I think these are the good and the not-so-good things:
1) it could certainly help people "new" to this sport in understanding the judging system better: they could, at first, watch the marks and then learn how to read the details, the 6.0 was perfectly understandable for anyone, this could be a "compromise" solution between the easiness need and the required accuracy in judging;
2) the reasons you give for choosing this instead of the 6.0 system;
3) I think it doesn't solve the IJS problems, except that, making the marks public, the judges would fear giving so biased marks;
4) and there is the problem of setting the "world record" score because the BVs of the elements keep changing.
Anyway, it can be discussed, excellent idea!

This is a very good idea, but I think these are the good and the not-so-good things:
1) it could certainly help people "new" to this sport in understanding the judging system better: they could, at first, watch the marks and then learn how to read the details, the 6.0 was perfectly understandable for anyone, this could be a "compromise" solution between the easiness need and the required accuracy in judging;
2) the reasons you give for choosing this instead of the 6.0 system;
3) I think it doesn't solve the IJS problems, except that, making the marks public, the judges would fear giving so biased marks;
4) and there is the problem of setting the "world record" score because the BVs of the elements keep changing.
Anyway, it can be discussed, excellent idea!

Thanks for the feedback!

Yeah, this system wouldn't solve all of the problems of the IJS (and there are several). But I'm glad you got the gist of it - a good compromise between judging accuracy and audience understanding.

As for the "world record" score being used as the benchmark, I think that the world record could be adjusted to reflect the changes. So we could take Yuna Kim's Olympic SP and rescore it based on any changes made in the GOE and the base value (with appropriate restrictions). Whatever the "world record" would be, it should probably be changed only after a particular season is over.

You have some very interesting and carefully thought-out ideas! It could serve very well the general public, but a little bit complicated to see it right through, though; you have to calculate scores once more. Another thing; setting the current WR as its golden standard might be troubling since while we can say overall judging tendancy can be said to be agreable with each other, still there exists different standard and set of judges throughout each and every competition. That's why figure skating is not a record driven sport like swimming or track sports while it does have record keeping system. If we could sort this problem out, I think your ideas have genuinely valid and ideal points! :respec:

Glad you like the idea!

I understand the point of this making the calculation more complicated, and we know the CoP system is already drowning in tabulations. Luckily, the conversion isn't difficult for a computer, and the end result would be better for the audience and I suppose the judges as well to know where they fit compared to other judges.

I echo your concerns about the world record being used. I'm thinking something like 95% of the world record would be a good ballpark place to set it, just so people can achieve the 10.0 mark at various competitions with different judges but have it still be difficult to attain.

Maybe just as a test run, I'll see if I can use this system on the upcoming TEB event (as soon as the protocols are live).

I understand the point of this making the calculation more complicated, and we know the CoP system is already drowning in tabulations. Luckily, the conversion isn't difficult for a computer, and the end result would be better for the audience and I suppose the judges as well to know where they fit compared to other judges.

I echo your concerns about the world record being used. I'm thinking something like 95% of the world record would be a good ballpark place to set it, just so people can achieve the 10.0 mark at various competitions with different judges but have it still be difficult to attain.

Maybe just as a test run, I'll see if I can use this system on the upcoming TEB event (as soon as the protocols are live).

Maybe just as a test run, I'll see if I can use this system on the upcoming TEB event (as soon as the protocols are live).

You totally should! I think it'll be fun and once you get used to it, everybody would ease into this :D

Mathman, draqq mentions the reason to use 10.0 scale instead of 6.0 scale in his/her ideas

Why use the 10.0 scale and not 6.0 scale?

The main reason is that the judges already use the 10.0 scale for PCS. Using a 6.0 scale to report it would be unnecessarily complicated. The 10.0 system also makes it look different from the original 6.0 system, to make it clear that we're not going back to that system (though of course the 10.0 scale has been used in professional skating).

Interesting proposal, but it seems designed more with casual audiences in mind than what would actually be meaningful to the sport itself. I also wonder how much it's influenced by gymnastics scoring.

Originally Posted by draqq

The base value is 28.6. So in proportion to the 40.0 mark, the base value is reported as a 7.1.

This is where you lose me.

There is a lot of detail that goes into setting the base value of the program -- the base value and the actual calls for each element. (Planned program content is irrelevant -- it only matters what the skater actually executes, although in occasional confusing situations

Knowing what the skater got credit for executing is the most valuable aspect of IJS for the skaters themselves and for anyone else who is trying to follow the technical details of the sport. Sure, it may be uninteresting and confusing to nonskaters, but if you do want to change how you report the details to nonskaters who aren't interested in learning the details, please leave the details in place for the people who do care and who are actually affected by those details. Please do not do away with the detailed protocols that give this information. They are much more useful everyone within the sport itself.

Having set values for each element that's known in advance for the whole season (although there are some changes to the scale of values each year) is also important. I don't think you're trying to get rid of it, but just to hide it from the public.

What you're proposing is to dumb down the base values as determined by the tech panel for purposes of reporting to the general public. Fair enough. I have no idea how gymnastics judges arrive at base values for routines, for example, and I can sit back and enjoy watching and get a general sense of who had a harder program without knowing the details.

You're also proposing to condense the columns of each judge's GOE added to the tech-panel-determined base mark for each skater into one score reported to public, paired with what I think is an average of each judge's five program component scores for each skater, to arrive at one technical score and one components score from each judge for each skater.

If indeed judges continue awarding separate scores for separate components, it's useful to the skaters themselves and to others who care about the details to see that broken down on the detailed protocol.

But for reporting to casual fans who are never going to look at the protocols anyway, seeing the base+GOE and average PCS from each judge for each skater gives more information than just the average total of the whole panel, which is currently all that's reported in the Kiss&Cry.

Yes, you can see which judges scored each skater higher or lower, which is interesting. It doesn't tell you what the judges' reasoning was, or give any idea who was wrong or right or biased or cheating or legitimately in the minority -- all that would be pure speculation, as it was under 6.0.

Looking at (non-anonymous) detailed protocols gives a better idea about why or where judges were marking skaters up or down, although we still can't actually read their minds.

I'm not sure what the value is of scaling the technical scores to a world record program. It will have to be recalibrated every time someone breaks the record. What happens if one skater breaks the record during a competition and earns a technical score that exceeds 10.0, and then another skater does an even harder program even better later in the same competition? Will scores greater than 10.0 be allowed? Or will those two best technical skaters be tied even though one clearly performed more/better and the whole point of competition is to distinguish between them?

Of course, if the point is just to let casual audiences know how these performances stand up compared to past performances and the 10.0 scale scores don't actually count toward the final result, then have fun, but make it clear to those casual viewers that that's all those numbers mean.

I like the simplicity of 10.0, but you lost me when skaters can get higher than 10.0 but that score is not shown to the audience. That could cause more confusion because if someone had 10.3 but the audience didn't know that then when the LP score is factored in and that 0.3 makes a difference in placement, people are going to wonder why.

What I do like about COP is that there is no cap on the TES. It bothered me when skaters would get 6.0 for programs that clearly had imperfections, such as Irina's terrific GPF skate in 2000. Now there is no "perfect" and skaters are marked on more quantifiable measures.

Interesting proposal, but it seems designed more with casual audiences in mind than what would actually be meaningful to the sport itself. I also wonder how much it's influenced by gymnastics scoring.

This is where you lose me.

There is a lot of detail that goes into setting the base value of the program -- the base value and the actual calls for each element. (Planned program content is irrelevant -- it only matters what the skater actually executes, although in occasional confusing situations

Knowing what the skater got credit for executing is the most valuable aspect of IJS for the skaters themselves and for anyone else who is trying to follow the technical details of the sport. Sure, it may be uninteresting and confusing to nonskaters, but if you do want to change how you report the details to nonskaters who aren't interested in learning the details, please leave the details in place for the people who do care and who are actually affected by those details. Please do not do away with the detailed protocols that give this information. They are much more useful everyone within the sport itself.

Having set values for each element that's known in advance for the whole season (although there are some changes to the scale of values each year) is also important. I don't think you're trying to get rid of it, but just to hide it from the public.

What you're proposing is to dumb down the base values as determined by the tech panel for purposes of reporting to the general public. Fair enough. I have no idea how gymnastics judges arrive at base values for routines, for example, and I can sit back and enjoy watching and get a general sense of who had a harder program without knowing the details.

You're also proposing to condense the columns of each judge's GOE added to the tech-panel-determined base mark for each skater into one score reported to public, paired with what I think is an average of each judge's five program component scores for each skater, to arrive at one technical score and one components score from each judge for each skater.

If indeed judges continue awarding separate scores for separate components, it's useful to the skaters themselves and to others who care about the details to see that broken down on the detailed protocol.

But for reporting to casual fans who are never going to look at the protocols anyway, seeing the base+GOE and average PCS from each judge for each skater gives more information than just the average total of the whole panel, which is currently all that's reported in the Kiss&Cry.

Yes, you can see which judges scored each skater higher or lower, which is interesting. It doesn't tell you what the judges' reasoning was, or give any idea who was wrong or right or biased or cheating or legitimately in the minority -- all that would be pure speculation, as it was under 6.0.

Looking at (non-anonymous) detailed protocols gives a better idea about why or where judges were marking skaters up or down, although we still can't actually read their minds.

I'm not sure what the value is of scaling the technical scores to a world record program. It will have to be recalibrated every time someone breaks the record. What happens if one skater breaks the record during a competition and earns a technical score that exceeds 10.0, and then another skater does an even harder program even better later in the same competition? Will scores greater than 10.0 be allowed? Or will those two best technical skaters be tied even though one clearly performed more/better and the whole point of competition is to distinguish between them?

Of course, if the point is just to let casual audiences know how these performances stand up compared to past performances and the 10.0 scale scores don't actually count toward the final result, then have fun, but make it clear to those casual viewers that that's all those numbers mean.

The protocols revealed at the end of each competition will essentially remain the same. It will still have the list of elements, their levels, their base values, and the individual scores for each component. Some of the 10.0-scaled marks I propose can be added for additional comprehensiveness, but the protocols remains the same. As you, I want to see the full breakdown.

This 10.0 system I'm proposing is simply for what's revealed on the TV screens and for the audiences in the ice rink. It gives a general idea of each judge's mark without having to fill the screen with too many numbers, but hardcore fans will know to go to the protocols online for a more complete picture of how every mark is determined.

As for using the world record score, I think it's best in this system to set this mark at the beginning of the season and not having it change until the start of the next season. If someone like Yuzuru Hanyu breaks the record at Skate America (as he did) and gets 10.0s across the board on TES, then I think he deserves to be able to earn those same 10.0s at all the competitions during the season, especially if he can do it consistently. Then at the start of the next season, the world record score for TES will be raised and he will be chasing the standard that he set himself the prior year.

A part of my reasoning behind this is because of how the 6.0 system worked in the past. A 6.0 in 1970 was much different than a 6.0 in 2000. What the perfect 6.0 means is to say that this particular program is perfect at this place and time. And I believe that the judges would reward that same program with perfect marks at a later competition if it was performed in the same manner. However, the following year, achieving that 6.0 would more difficult as a new standard would be set in place.

I like the simplicity of 10.0, but you lost me when skaters can get higher than 10.0 but that score is not shown to the audience. That could cause more confusion because if someone had 10.3 but the audience didn't know that then when the LP score is factored in and that 0.3 makes a difference in placement, people are going to wonder why.

What I do like about COP is that there is no cap on the TES. It bothered me when skaters would get 6.0 for programs that clearly had imperfections, such as Irina's terrific GPF skate in 2000. Now there is no "perfect" and skaters are marked on more quantifiable measures.

That's true. I was thinking about how to resolve this issue because theoretically the PCS can go from 0.0 - 10.0, but the TES could virtually go from 0.0 - infinity. I think my reasoning also stems from my inclination to hear the announcer shout "10!" instead of, say, "10.3!"

But to be clear, if someone does score higher than the 10.0 in TES, that change is still reflected in the final total score. It might cause slight confusion, but I think the chances of two skaters (let alone one) breaking the world record TES score would be incredibly rare. (And if so, we would be treated to one extremely magical night of skating.)

That's true. I was thinking about how to resolve this issue because theoretically the PCS can go from 0.0 - 10.0, but the TES could virtually go from 0.0 - infinity.

Can it, though? Would it be possible to compute a maximum possible score for the SP/LP for each discipline, assuming the hardest jumps and highest spin and step levels with +3 GOE? For example, for ladies SP, that would include a 3A, 3LZ-3LO and 3F, all executed in the 2nd half with level 4 steps and spins, and +3 GOEs everywhere. This way, it would be very unlikely to get a relative score higher than 10. For the men, and for the LP it gets a bit more complicated but we can always make assumptions based on the current level of skating. For example a 4LZ-3T and 4F with 3A in he men SP.

This maximum would be adjusted every year to reflect the level of skating and the changing requirements/point system.

Can it, though? Would it be possible to compute a maximum possible score for the SP/LP for each discipline, assuming the hardest jumps and highest spin and step levels with +3 GOE? For example, for ladies SP, that would include a 3A, 3LZ-3LO and 3F, all executed in the 2nd half with level 4 steps and spins, and +3 GOEs everywhere. This way, it would be very unlikely to get a relative score higher than 10. For the men, and for the LP it gets a bit more complicated but we can always make assumptions based on the current level of skating. For example a 4LZ-3T and 4F with 3A in he men SP.

This maximum would be adjusted every year to reflect the level of skating and the changing requirements/point system.

I love this idea, by the way.

The problem with this is that top level of possible score sets the bar so high that most people will start out of 7 or 8. If you do all the non-jump elements that will account for about 4 points. So there is not going to be much variation between a program with good jumps and one with bad jumps, perhaps 2 points. That small margin can be more than made up with PCS if the judges use the full range. (In other words, a perfect skate could score 7 on TES and a disaster might score 5, whereas a good PCS mark might be 9 and a poor one 4.)

It's an interesting discussion but it really is hard to come up with a judging system everyone likes.